“Give me liberty or give me death,” says global economist Dambisa Moyo, quoting Patrick Henry from 1775. In Western ideology, freedom is the most cherished value of all, and its government and economic systems have freedom deeply embedded in them. Over the past century, these systems have delivered prosperity and innovation: US incomes have increased 30 times, hundreds of thousands have been lifted from poverty, and US ingenuity has helped spur global industrialization. So there’s an understandably deep-seated presumption among Westerners that the whole world wants to embrace an ideology that holds sacred private capitalism, liberal democracy and prioritizing political rights over economic rights.

But there’s an ideological schism emerging between developed and developing countries, and it is widening. Ninety percent of the world’s population lives in emerging markets, and to them, the obsession with political rights is beside the point, taking a backseat to food, shelter, education and healthcare. When you’re earning less than $1 a day, says Moyo, you’re far too busy trying to feed your family to worry about defending democracy.

It’s not that these people wouldn’t ideally like to pick their own presidents and leaders, says Moyo, but on balance, they worry more about where life improvements will come from, and how quickly — not whether the governments that will deliver what they need got put there by democracy. What would you choose if you had to choose between the right to a roof over your head and the right to vote?

Now, for the first time in a long time, a real challenge to Western ideals is emerging — the system embodied by China, which values state capitalism, deemphasizes democracy and prioritizes economic rights. China’s system is gathering momentum as the system to follow because it promises the fastest improvements in living standards in the shortest period of time. Moyo cites China’s astonishing record of poverty alleviation and improvement in living standards. While the US and China have vastly different political and economic systems, they have an identical Gini coefficient — the measure of income inequality. In fact, China’s income inequality is improving while the US’s is getting worse.

And then there’s China’s legendary infrastructure — 85,000 kilometers of roadwork, surpassing the United States. And it extends beyond their own borders; for instance, China has tarred the 9,000 miles between Cape Town and Cairo. China has also used state-owned enterprises to deliver healthcare to previously unreachable areas. No surprise, then, that in a 2007 Pew survey, Africans in 10 countries said China was doing amazing things to improve livelihoods. “People are pointing at China and saying ‘I like that, I want that. That’s a system that seems to work.'”

Photo: James Duncan Davidson

Moyo points to another shift in perception: people are starting to doubt that democracy is a prerequisite to growth. She argues a different angle, that economic growth is a prerequisite for democracy, citing a study that suggests that only after a country achieves $6,000 per capita income can you expect your democracy to last forever “come hell or high water.” This suggests that the key for a solid democracy is a solid middle class — and raises doubt about rushing around shoehorning democracy into countries that are not ready for it. This runs the risk of ending up with illiberal democracies, those with restricted freedom of speech and movement — worse than the governments they seek to replace.

There’s evidence that this schism in ideology will likely widen, espeically as China becomes the largest economy in the world, which it’s set to do in 2016. Moyo gives us a glimpse of what kind of world we’ll be living in: one with a bigger state role, more state capitalism, increasing protectionism, and fewer political rights and individual freedoms.

How should the West respond? Moyo says it can choose to compete with the Chinese model or cooperate. If the West chooses to compete, it would have to convince many countries in the emerging world to take its side, which is likely to widen the schism. Cooperation would mean allowing emerging countries to make their own choices for what works for them. Could this be considered ceding to China? Moyo suggests cooperation is the best way for the US and Europe to maintain their influence in a changing world, and compete in the long term.

So what should the West be doing? It should be expanding trade and investment around the world, demonstrating how western liberal democracy and free markets are a good choice, and allowing other countries to decide which political and economic systems work best for them. In short, it needs to take a page from its own history and practice patience — after all, it took the US almost 170 years from signing the Constitution to achieving universal suffrage.

Moyo argues that people naturally pivot towards economics and politics in a rational way, seeking better living standards in a short amount of time. As individuals, it’s up to us to be open-minded, she says. To illustrate, she tells the story of her birth in 1968, in Zambia, where, at the time, black people were not issued birth certificates. In 40 years, if Moyo could go from being unrecognized as a human being to standing here delivering her ideas to the world, it’s possible to tear up preconceived structures and strictures, and instead look at options and seek the truth. “It’s about transforming the world and making it a better place.”

In George Ayittey’s classic TED Talk from 2007, he describes two factions in Africa toggling for control — the “hippo generation,” the ruling elites riddled with corruption and inaction, and the “cheetah generation,” the fast-moving entrepreneurial leaders with the ability to create change. This session — guest hosted by TED Fellows Adrian Hong (who works […]

In 2007, at TEDGlobal in Arusha, Tanzania, Euvin Naidoo gave an opening talk about investing in African countries — laying out 10 markets and metrics to watch as African nations gained capacity. Today, in a follow-up post, investor Ryan Hoover looks at these 10 metrics that Naidoo laid out — and charts how much has […]

Comments (6)

Thought provoking speech from someone who obviously has the pedigree (African), Credentials, documented facts, publicly scrutinized opinions pieces and books, succinct arguments, and life experiences, to be listened to. Controversial no doubt, as both libertarians and progressives, might fundamentally take issue with her recommendations. It would be a huge mistake however, to put abstract, distant, hypothetical, and ephemeral concerns about future generations’ (50+ years from now) running out of gold, oil, commodities, or crude oil, to distract from the more important and immediate issues relating to a) meeting the immediate needs of globe’s poorest, b) wrestling with the actual or at least proposed tension between economic and political freedom. Brilliant eye-opening speech!

Should also add that though I am not an expert, I’ve read enough to know that especially recently, traditional development efforts in Africa have, appropriately, come under intense scrutiny, as experts wrestle with finding better understanding of development, not to mention better framework for fomenting development.

Ms. Moyo clearly has not spent time in the trenches of African development if she believes that the Chinese are a better suitor for aid to Africa than the other nations of the world. I have lived in China for 5 years and also seen, first hand, the removal of what makes Africa – precious minerals, oil and many other resources – all being removed lock, stock and barrel back to China. The roads they have built make the removal of precious materials possible. China is agnostic, perhaps even atheist when it come to country politics within the nations from which they are extracting precious materials. The Chinese bring their own workers and along with them come Chinese hawkers who can easily outsell Malawian and Gabonese merchants to name just two. The Chinese have not spent a single cent on saving lives in Africa, it is just not part of their present portfolio. On the other hand, the USA spent $16.2B on reducing HIV/AIDS through PEPFAR. Ms. Moyo is correct in saying that some aid programs are poorly executed – she’ll get no argument from me there, but American, British, Japanese, Danish, European and other aid goes extensively to saving lives which I would think she would celebrate rather than extoll the virtues of a country which will suck Africa dry over the next 50 years. She should read Paul Colliers book about the “Bottom Million” and rental economies. Governmental stability is what brings about foreign investment. Let’s let African countries work on that and end the corruptive practices of E. Guinea and Nigeria. I was also shocked that Ms. Moyo received a standing ovation for her presentation. It is likely that those who stood have not worked in Africa, nor seen China Inc. in power. I loved the TED conference but Ms. Moyo is out to make a name for herself based on a ridiculous premise. I have spent too many years working in Africa to accept what she has to say, even if she is Zambian and hold 2 PhD’s, as her CV states. If Ms. Moyo wished to point her guns on Haiti, I will agree with her completely. Aid to Haiti has been mismanaged by bad planning and poor execution. I wish I could have met Ms. Moyo,but she was unavailable after her speech.

Well said Glenn, very sad that Ms Mayo had a standing ovation for stating such inaccuracies. Even if one hasn’t lived in China or Africa there is plenty of news coverage from different sourses to let the world know of the devastation the Chinese are leaving in their wake~ Karen